politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The SNP is betting favourite to win in just 4 of the 41 LA

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The SNP is betting favourite to win in just 4 of the 41 LAB-held Scottish seats. See chart

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

Peter_the_Punter

Short arms, deep pockets?

TheWatcher

Drinking before betting.

Charles

Peter_the_Punter said:

Short arms, deep pockets?

Husbanding their reserves for the long dark night of socialism

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

I wonder if the Scottish problem for Labour is one that can be solved, but doing so may harm its prospects in England.

We'll see how significant the desire for English votes or an English Parliament is at the election. Whilst personally very interested, I think most people will not consider it, alas, a substantial influence on their voting behaviour. That may well change when Scots are setting their own income tax rates and then voting in English income tax as well.

TheScreamingEagles

As with the indyref, the betting markets are correct.

Or may they maybe waiting for Scotlandshire specific constituency polling before betting.

Although many PBers are grateful for Antifrank's summer tip to back the SNP in the long odds seats.

AlastairMeeks

Broke after the referendum?

Some of us have been happy betting on the SNP at long odds in these constituencies. I'm considering increasing my exposure, given the polls. Waiting for post-Murphy polls will mean giving up on the apparent value that's out there.

TheScreamingEagles

As discussed last night

Which of the following do you believe should be crowned sports personality of the year?

Lewis Hamilton 36%

Rory McIlroy 9%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2qik25ohr5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-121214.pdf

Which has moved the price of Hamilton to win from around 15/8 to 6/4 since last night

http://www.oddschecker.com/awards/sports-personality-of-the-year/winner

Artist

You'd imagine Dundee West and Falkirk are near certainties.

Labour are 2/5 favourites in Livingston according to Ladbrokes?

TheWatcher

I see Vince Cable is stirring things up for NATS. Does he not realise the taxpayer still owns 49%?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30467692

As for 'Ancient', Swanwick was only built a decade ago. The code might be old, but the hardware isn't.

OldKingCole

FPT, Mr CD13, I’m most obliged for the link. Only goes to show that science moves on and ruling things is is often not wise.

I do wonder in this context what the average age of the morbidly obese British is. Is it the 70 year olds, who experienced rationing during their developmental years, or the 50 year olds who were born in the 60’s, when food was plentiful?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Watcher, if Cable's understanding of NATS matches his understanding of how the new VAT law works I'd take his utterances with a boulder of salt:
http://pennygrubb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/government-minister-advocates-law.html

TheWatcher

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Watcher, if Cable's understanding of NATS matches his understanding of how the new VAT law works I'd take his utterances with a boulder of salt:
http://pennygrubb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/government-minister-advocates-law.html

The Cable Mark 1, is running obsolete software on ancient hardware. Should have been retired years ago.

isam

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

FrancisUrquhart

Radio 4 Today programme interviewer John Humphrys accused his employer of being ‘soft’, ‘complacent’ and ‘institutionally nervous’ about tackling the story or questioning multiculturalism.

And he said BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives and are overwhelmingly ‘liberal Oxbridge males’.

The veteran star said too many BBC staff are ‘arrogant’ and thought they ‘knew what was best for the country’.

He added: ‘It was and still is relentlessly middle class. Unfortunately. There was a predominant voice and that was the liberal Oxbridge male.’

He has also said the BBC’s coverage of climate change ‘abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873484/Radio-4-s-John-Humphrys-admits-BBC-ignored-mass-immigration-fearing-branded-racist-critics.html

Well blow me down.

surbiton

Where is Stuart Dickson when you need him ?

calum

Don't worry, some of us Nats are out there betting, but the bookies seem to be running a bit scared. For example I tried to place some bets with William Hill today about how many seats Labour would retain and was restricted to bets of only £5-10 at the 0-15 seats level (not far off what's indicated by current polls). If it's so unlikely why aren't they prepared to take my money?

I think the SNP SPIN market looks excellent value at the moment

surbiton

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

ChokinVase

surbiton said:

The sums don't add up.

I think what we're really seeing are the effects of a relatively illiquid market. There's too much uncertainty for many to feel confident about the outcomes, so there's relatively little money being staked (either way), creating disparities between various markets and opportunities for those who do actually feel confident (one way or another) to make money. Even if they do bet, however, they're unlikely to stake enough or in sufficient numbers to move the odds massively, so the disparities remain. Markets need money moving through them to become efficient/accurate. I doubt we're seeing enough at the moment.

As a southerner, with almost zero knowlege of local Scottish politics, I'm steering well clear of all these markets. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

Ninoinoz

FPT @Plato

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/16/nigel-farage-edinburgh-protesters-van
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/28/Tory-protests-in-Rochester-during-Reckless-Farage-Walkabout
http://news.sky.com/story/1253723/man-charged-over-egg-attack-on-ukips-farage
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/left-wing-press-ignores-ukips-revenge-porn-victim/

SquareRoot

FOR SOCRATES


This IIRC was the case you blamed the EU for not allowing an indeterminate sentence...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11283748/Very-dangerous-paedophile-released-over-unlawful-sentence.html

Your link was to a Welsh newspaper but the story is the same.. you blamed the EU

The relevant para's are here

"They said that a sentence for public protection was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force on April 4 2005.

Mr Justice Coulson said that as the offences were committed between October 22 2001 and May 1 2004, there was "no power to impose an IPP".

He said: "That sentence must therefore be quashed."

Flightpath

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

isam

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Although part of me wonders if its a wind up!

Ninoinoz

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Yep, filled it in last night.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.

I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.

Ninoinoz

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

Perhaps he wishes to study the political phenomenon of the last two years?

Your pathetic moaning really is getting tedious.

Quincel

A quick browse through the Labour gains in 1997 shows that (surprise surprise) swings of roughly 10.5% were common, with some variation on both sides of the central national swing. If recent polling was reproduced in 2015, the Scottish swing would be roughly 20%, so every majority under 40% would be likely to go (with some exceptions down to local factors). But if the lead drops to a 10% swing, only a couple of seats are likely. Hence the uncertainty.

I'll say this, the much shorter than evens available on the SNP most seats in Scotland looks poor value compared to just sticking money on 5 or 6 random seats with majorities of roughly 20%. Similar bet, double or better the odds.

Just noticed we won't be able to say "in 2015" without ambiguity for much longer...

rcs1000

@SquareRoot,

I believe Socrates has already noted his mistake.

isam

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

I know people like to be smart arses on here, but that was really crap.... how can you be bothered?

Pulpstar

The graphic at the top is misleading.

For instance Edinburgh South has Labour with a very narrow lead over the LIB DEMs - which is irrelevant to the SNP's correct odds there.

franklyn

If oil prices continue to fall there will be widespread unemployment in Scotland by the time of the election. It will also make nonsense of the Nats claims to their financial independent viability. The windfarms (which have encroached on rural Scotland at an enormous rate)will also be an increasing economic drain. Set against that falling fuel prices and heating costs will give disproportionate benefit in rural Scotland.

How all this pans out no- one knows, but none of it has been factored in

Ninoinoz

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

Perhaps because his subject matter has vaporised?
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/12/12/the-year-the-bnp-died/

Quincel

Quincel said:

I'll say this, the much shorter than evens available on the SNP most seats in Scotland looks poor value compared to just sticking money on 5 or 6 random seats with majorities of roughly 20%. Similar bet, double or better the odds.

Actually, you can probably just do that and then bet on Lab most seats at 6/4 (or whatever it is now). Highly unlikely that the SNP wins most seats but not at least 3 of the bottom 5 SNP-facing majorities (Pulpstar's comment notwithstanding), also slightly possible that the SNP wins their easiest targets but Labour wins most seats.

Peter_the_Punter

@ChokinVase

I feel pretty much the same way.

There may be plenty of value in these Scottish Seat but you can only cover so much ground efficiently and I find Scotland too difficult, so I duck it.

Flightpath

isam said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

I know people like to be smart arses on here, but that was really crap.... how can you be bothered?

How can anybody?
''Inside UKIP circles he is widely detested, possibly because he writes punditry for the Guardian where he seeks to bracket UKIP with the BNP.''
http://order-order.com/2013/05/03/smart-money-is-on-matthew-goodwin-to-get-it-wrong/

calum

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

MikeL

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

Because the strong likelihood is that Lab will recover (and I say that as a Con supporter - unlike 99% of people on here I don't just "predict" what I personally want to happen).

You have to look at the long term track record - which is that Lab always sweeps the board in Scotland and SNP gets very few seats.

OK, SNP is currently polling much higher but there are 5 months to go and the likelihood has to be that there will be some "reversion to the long-term norm".

Ditto why it's crazy to forecast the result for England based on today's polls - again you have to factor in long term trends.

SquareRoot

rcs1000 said:

@SquareRoot,

I believe Socrates has already noted his mistake.

Indeed so but he asked for the relevant link..

Richard_Tyndall

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Yep, filled it in last night.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.

I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.

Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.

Moses_

Surprise.... Not!

"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan as a result of the recent fall in the price of oil.In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Laidlaw said he believed that were Labour to come to power next May, its plan to freeze fuel bills for two years could actually hurt consumers."



How's that cost of living crisis going Ed?

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians.

Eds still a dud, a very expensive dud at that

Quincel

Moses_ said:

Surprise.... Not!

"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan as a result of the recent fall in the price of oil.In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Laidlaw said he believed that were Labour to come to power next May, its plan to freeze fuel bills for two years could actually hurt consumers."



How's that cost of living crisis going Ed?

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians.

Eds still a dud, a very expensive dud at that

In March, earlier this year, SSE announced an 18 month price freeze. David Cameron announced that this was "hugely welcome". Ed's policy, which is madness and totally unfeasible, is...a 20 month price freeze.

MarkSenior

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

Big_G_NorthWales

MikeL said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

Because the strong likelihood is that Lab will recover (and I say that as a Con supporter - unlike 99% of people on here I don't just "predict" what I personally want to happen).

You have to look at the long term track record - which is that Lab always sweeps the board in Scotland and SNP gets very few seats.

OK, SNP is currently polling much higher but there are 5 months to go and the likelihood has to be that there will be some "reversion to the long-term norm".

Ditto why it's crazy to forecast the result for England based on today's polls - again you have to factor in long term trends.

Scotland has changed dramatically post referendum and SNP support will not diminish as previously. There is no other game in town and whilst economic circumstances may well have an impact longer term the SNP will seriously damage SLAB in May 2015 and probably in the Holyrood election in 2016. There is simply no time for the elation the Scots feel for the SNP even in No areas to diminish other than possibly the borders. UK politics has changed forever and Jim Murphy will create his own Scots Labour and Westminster labour will be powerless to stop it

Flightpath

Moses_ said:

Surprise.... Not!
"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan ...

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians. ...

The low oil price is bad for producers - reducing growth by 0.7 % per $20 reduction. The SNP have to explan how that affects an independent oil producing Scotland.
Those people responding to polls have to explain how they support a party that only a few weeks ago was pushing voters to support what would hve turned out to be economic armgeddon for them.
I am happy for Labour to loose seats but on a betting site I imagine punters have to factor in someone like Murphy pressing them on that.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002067.html#more

For a wider UK - ''according to the Oxford simulations, growth will average 2.6% a year in 2015-16 if oil averages $84 a barrel, but close to 3% if it comes down to $40, which many in the industry are talking about ''

During the referendum the NATs did not press the following - ''The Office for Budget Responsibility noted in its latest assessment, published alongside the autumn statement, that North Sea revenues have dropped by 75% to £2.8bn a year since 2008, on the back of a 50% drop in production and tax changes that allow oil companies to offset more of their capital spending against tax. A lower oil price may knock a few hundred million more off North Sea revenues but that is small beer when set against the benefits.''

''Thank you oil men of Dakota. Cheap oil, cheap food, and cheap money give us all the reasons we need to forecast continued strong UK growth and low inflation.''
''Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, stands out among political leaders – with the possible exception of the Greens – in praying for the oil price to go back above $100 a barrel.''

TheWatcher

Ninoinoz said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Goodwin has indeed made quite a study of the BNP. I cannot think why he wants to do a study of kippers.

Perhaps because his subject matter has vaporised?
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/12/12/the-year-the-bnp-died/

I wonder where the constituent parts 'condensed' ?

JamesMo

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

HurstLlama

Those of green inclination can rest a little easier. Energy costs may be falling but that nice Mr. Cameron is doing his bit to massively increase the price of electricity for households and even more so for medium sized businesses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11292367/Green-policies-to-add-up-to-40pc-to-cost-of-household-electricity.html

TCPoliticalBetting

We have the Labour and SNP vote in Scotland going
2005 LAB 40% SNP 17%
2007 LAB 32% SNP 33% (constituency)
2010 LAB 42% SNP 20%
2011 LAB 32% SNP 45% (constituency)
These are massive fluctuations. Was it because for GEs the Lab supporters come out but not for ScotParl elections and in reverse for SNP supporters? Presumably there are academic reports into this?

Socrates

SquareRoot said:

FOR SOCRATES


This IIRC was the case you blamed the EU for not allowing an indeterminate sentence...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11283748/Very-dangerous-paedophile-released-over-unlawful-sentence.html

Your link was to a Welsh newspaper but the story is the same.. you blamed the EU

The relevant para's are here

"They said that a sentence for public protection was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force on April 4 2005.

Mr Justice Coulson said that as the offences were committed between October 22 2001 and May 1 2004, there was "no power to impose an IPP".

He said: "That sentence must therefore be quashed."

Thanks for that. Apologies for making the mistake of blaming it on the EU.

MarkSenior

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Big_G_NorthWales

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Any references to previous performances in Scotland are absolutely irrelevant as the referendum campaign and vote has changed Scotland fundamentally. The SNP will win many more seats in 2015 and nothing will alter that in such a short time scale. My wife is a Scot and proud to be a Scot but also to be British but we would both vote SNP in 2015 if we still lived in Scotland and this as voters who have never supported the SNP

Flightpath

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MikeL said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

Because the strong likelihood is that Lab will recover (and I say that as a Con supporter - unlike 99% of people on here I don't just "predict" what I personally want to happen).
....

Scotland has changed dramatically post referendum and SNP support will not diminish as previously. There is no other game in town and whilst economic circumstances may well have an impact longer term the SNP will seriously damage SLAB in May 2015 and probably in the Holyrood election in 2016. There is simply no time for the elation the Scots feel for the SNP even in No areas to diminish other than possibly the borders. UK politics has changed forever and Jim Murphy will create his own Scots Labour and Westminster labour will be powerless to stop it

Scotland as part of the UK will benefit from low oil prices instead of being sliced apart by them. So you are right - Scotland has changed dramatically post referendum.
If Murphy does not hammer that then I hope the Tories do.

The feature that does hold up is that unilateralists see no point to Labour but they like the SNP.
Its easy to see the way the SNP are swinging. Will right wing idealist independents stick? Will Labour's tradtional support bite the hand that feeds them?
Oil kick started independence. Its running out its losing value. Apart from extreme leftwing fruitcakes and loons, who is going to accept that there is a real future for Scotland outside the UK?

JamesMo

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

link?

rcs1000

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Any references to previous performances in Scotland are absolutely irrelevant as the referendum campaign and vote has changed Scotland fundamentally. The SNP will win many more seats in 2015 and nothing will alter that in such a short time scale. My wife is a Scot and proud to be a Scot but also to be British but we would both vote SNP in 2015 if we still lived in Scotland and this as voters who have never supported the SNP

I agree for 2015: largely because Scotland remains mired in everyone vs the Conservatives.

From 2020, it will be nationalists vs unionists, and it will be even more unpleasant.

TCPoliticalBetting

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

JPJ2

This is rather like the Holyrood 2007 election where it was clear that the SNP were going to make a major advance, perhaps even win, but unclear how that would be reflected in terms of the constituency seats (which are FPTP).

As it turned out, the SNP won a number of their obvious target seats but not others. They also won some constituency seats with larger swings than expected, and larger than in those target seats where they failed.

I hate FPTP for a number of reasons, not least because if the SNP are only just ahead of Labour in the popular vote, Labour will be well ahead of the SNP in terms of seats.

Best advice I can give those tempted is to review the Holyrood 2007 results, allow so far as you can manage for differential boundaries (not easy), and factor in the significantly poorer outlook for the Lib Dems.

Note: This is sufficiently difficult that my only bets currently on specific seats with bookies are on Gordon and the Western Isles at MUCH better odds than now available in both cases.

GeoffM

Quincel said:

Moses_ said:

Surprise.... Not!

"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan as a result of the recent fall in the price of oil.In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Laidlaw said he believed that were Labour to come to power next May, its plan to freeze fuel bills for two years could actually hurt consumers."



How's that cost of living crisis going Ed?

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians.

Eds still a dud, a very expensive dud at that

In March, earlier this year, SSE announced an 18 month price freeze. David Cameron announced that this was "hugely welcome". Ed's policy, which is madness and totally unfeasible, is...a 20 month price freeze.

Yes, obviously. There's a huge difference between random State interference in private sector pricing and those same private companies setting prices according to their buy price and calculated margins.

rcs1000

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) against $110. The UK impact is likely to be slightly more than in this data as I was using 2013 oil production data to calculate net imports, but is nevertheless interesting:

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

HYUFD

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

Big_G_NorthWales

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Any references to previous performances in Scotland are absolutely irrelevant as the referendum campaign and vote has changed Scotland fundamentally. The SNP will win many more seats in 2015 and nothing will alter that in such a short time scale. My wife is a Scot and proud to be a Scot but also to be British but we would both vote SNP in 2015 if we still lived in Scotland and this as voters who have never supported the SNP

I agree for 2015: largely because Scotland remains mired in everyone vs the Conservatives.

From 2020, it will be nationalists vs unionists, and it will be even more unpleasant.

Agreed but by that time I would expect the Nationalists to have a much weaker economic proposal and the Unionists case be strengthened always providing the UK stays in the EU

rcs1000

Re Scotland:

Is anyone doing a LibDem seat spread?
With only two genuinely safe seats, and truly awful Holyrood results last time around, it could be an (almost total) bloodbath...

foxinsoxuk

rcs1000 said:

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) based on $110. The UK impact is likely to be slightly more than in this data as I was using 2013 oil production data to calculate net imports, but is nevertheless interesting:

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

A useful bit of economic growth in our major markets there!

Theuniondivvie

MarkSenior said:

There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

'A' poll.
When was the last time 6 successive GE polls consistently had the SNP ahead of Labour, range 2-29%, average lead c.18%?

GeoffM

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

A new twist on an old insult which is always nice to see, and yes, very typical Cummings.

The best insults, though, are ones which have at least a hint of truth in them. Without it, this lacks any bite.

Paul_Mid_Beds

I have a feeling that come election day, this SNP surge will go much the same way as the Cleggasm did in 2010. Most of the majorities are just too large to overcome most of them in one go.

Where it will cause Labour problems is that they will have to divert resources to shoring up previously safe seats that they would prefer to use attempting to capture extra seats.

Luckyguy1983

GeoffM said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

A new twist on an old insult which is always nice to see, and yes, very typical Cummings.

The best insults, though, are ones which have at least a hint of truth in them. Without it, this lacks any bite.

Have you worked closely with Cameron then?

Flightpath

Quincel said:

Moses_ said:

Surprise.... Not!

"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan as a result of the recent fall in the price of oil.In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Laidlaw said he believed that were Labour to come to power next May, its plan to freeze fuel bills for two years could actually hurt consumers."

How's that cost of living crisis going Ed?

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians.

Eds still a dud, a very expensive dud at that

In March, earlier this year, SSE announced an 18 month price freeze. David Cameron announced that this was "hugely welcome". Ed's policy, which is madness and totally unfeasible, is...a 20 month price freeze.

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

tlg86

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).

It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

JamesMo

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Looked for this myself:

The "16 point SNP lead" poll came from a firm who don't appear to have made any other polls ("Scottish Opinion"). I think we can therefore dismiss that as a rogue poll and basically irrelevant.

Of the companies that regularly poll Scotland and continue to do so (YouGov, Ipsos Mori and TNS-BMRB), only one poll showed the SNP in the lead (Mori, by 2 points, in November 2009). All of the other polls put Labour in front, sometimes by double digits. e.g. YouGov 36-25 on 7 January, TNS 39-25 on 3 November. Whereas all of the polling since the referendum, by various companies, has shown SNP leads. The only disagreement is as to the scale of the lead, and that depends on the weighting techniques used by the firm concerned.

The polls in late 2009 / early 2010 overstated SNP support and underestimated the Lib Dems. Almost all of the pre-election polls had the Lib Dems down to 10-15 points, when in fact they got nearly 20. I think it's reasonable to assume the SNP were the biggest victims (in Scotland) of "Cleggmania". I don't think that's likely to happen again.

Big_G_NorthWales

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

I have a feeling that come election day, this SNP surge will go much the same way as the Cleggasm did in 2010. The majorities are just too large to overcome most of them in one go.

The momentum is all with the SNP who will make some sensational gains even in the No voting areas

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Yep, filled it in last night.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.

I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.

Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.

Consider changing which policy?

Scrapheap_as_was

Yes!!!!! 2-1 again. Whoopee!!! Liverpool the new spurs....

Hobbit was ok too...

calum

MikeL said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

Because the strong likelihood is that Lab will recover (and I say that as a Con supporter - unlike 99% of people on here I don't just "predict" what I personally want to happen).

You have to look at the long term track record - which is that Lab always sweeps the board in Scotland and SNP gets very few seats.

OK, SNP is currently polling much higher but there are 5 months to go and the likelihood has to be that there will be some "reversion to the long-term norm".

Ditto why it's crazy to forecast the result for England based on today's polls - again you have to factor in long term trends.

I think the shift from SLAB to SNP started back in Holyrood 2011 when most of us ex~Labour supporters first voted SNP. It appears that the Westminster and Holyrood voting intentions are converging.

I am doubtful that there is much SLAB can do to reverse this trend. I'm sure that the Scottish Tories kept hoping for a reversion to the long term norm during the 1980s/90s as they faced extinction.

SLAB's biggest problem in winning back any of us is Ed Milliband ~ he is so unpopular in Scotland as evidenced by the recent YowGuv poll were only 8% of Scottish voters thought he was doing a good job ~ even Nigel got 10%.

TCPoliticalBetting

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).
It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.

*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley

Luckyguy1983

Bullsh*t Strictly result!

ChokinVase

rcs1000 said:

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) against $110...

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

This is really fascinating stuff, thank you for posting it.

The Japan figure is particularly striking. Maybe Abe will risk hiking that sales tax again after all!! Is the massive positive economic impact of crude price falls largely down to the effect of their massively curtailing nuclear-powered electricity generation post-Fukushima? I suppose, in other words, would there be a massive boost to the Japanese economy if it returned to using nuclear power?

I gather one or two reactors have been restarted, though don't know if this is the start of a wider return to nuclear energy there. If it is, it will be very gradual, I suspect, especially if crude stays relatively cheap...

It's also interesting that the UK figure is relatively low (though still big in absolute terms). I appreciate that we're an exporter as well as importer, so there's a negative aspect to consider, but with gas such a big part of our energy mix compared to some other countries, I figured its fall in price might contribute more significantly.

Out of curiosity, and without going into too many details that I likely won't understand, does your model incorporate dynamic effects on the petroleum industries? For instance, does it take into account possible reductions in the rate of expansion of shale production in the USA with a fall in the crude price? Or is it a more static adjustment?

Flightpath

GeoffM said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

A new twist on an old insult which is always nice to see, and yes, very typical Cummings.

The best insults, though, are ones which have at least a hint of truth in them. Without it, this lacks any bite.

Cummings is the reason Gove is chief whip.
ConHome pointed out ''a ruthless man who fights to win and is prepared to risk defeat.'' Maybe this article indicates he's lost.

tlg86

TCPoliticalBetting said:

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).
It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.

*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley

I preferred it when Rowenna Davis was a regular. Hopefully she'll return after she loses Southampton Itchen.

Richard_Tyndall

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Yep, filled it in last night.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.

I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.

Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.

Consider changing which policy?

I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.

For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.

Quincel

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

Charles

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

HYUFD

GeoffM It plays on the 'Cameron the Eton toff' stereotype though. Cummings is one of the only Tories who has managed to fall out with both David Davis and David Cameron, both the traditionalists and the modernisers, which perhaps tells you something!

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Ninoinoz said:

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Yep, filled it in last night.

Prof. Matthew Goodwin is the most respected researcher into UKIP and is no right-winger, but that doesn't seem to affect his academic judgment.

I hope I have completely confused them by strongly identifying with East Europeans (i.e. Catholic Poles) but being generally favourable to UKIP's policies, such as they are.

Personally, and since it is one of the subjects used to attack UKIP so regularly, I was sorry they asked no questions about attitudes to sexuality. Maybe the organisation is worried about what the response would be - either too pro-homosexuality for them in which case they would have to consider changing policy or too anti-homosexuality in which case the results would embarrass them. Either way it was rather an obvious omission given the range of subjects they otherwise ask opinion on.

Consider changing which policy?

I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.

For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.

Oh right.. Sorry wasn't being facetious I thought they might have had some policy that I didn't know about on it

Charles

Quincel said:

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

The difference is, though, that companies can effectively hedge an elective price freeze (and can even pre-hedge and then withdraw the offer once their hedge is filled). This allows them to capture the spread between the hedge price and the freeze price (so their only exposure is operating costs exceeding plan) while also securing volume to cover their overheads.

A mandatory price freeze is totally different: I suspect that they would struggle to hedge the complete amount effectively: at a minimum they would get killed on the spreads. More than that, I suspect that various hedge funds would anticipate this and position accordingly: all Ed Miliband would achieve would be to hand a big profit to his friends in the City.

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Tyndall said:

I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.

For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.

Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.

UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.

surbiton

ASSS 14/12/14 [ Aggregate Sub Samples Surbitonised ]

Warning: Totally unscientific.

This week's ASSS:

Percentages: Con 32.4%, Lab 31.83%, LD 6.99%, UKIP 14.61%, Grn 6.54%

Seats: Con 274, Lab 292, LD 16, UKIP 0, Grn 1, SNP 45, PC 3, Spk 1, NI 18

Last week: Con 277, Lab 284, LD 17, UKIP 0, Grn 1, SNP 49, PC 3, Spk 1, NI 18

Coming shortly, the ASSSS [ Aggregate Sophisticated Sub Samples Surbitonised ]. This will adjust for UKIP and LD.

Labour has improved by 3, mainly because SNP went down from 49 to 45.

The total percentages are from regional sub samples aggregated over a week. Yougov.

FrankBooth

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

Nice joke Charles, but I'm afraid you are ignoring the point. You know full well the intent of what Cummings is saying. It's hardly very flattering of the PM is it? Whether Cummings is a reliable source is a bit more questionable.

Richard_Tyndall

SeanT said:

i want to see the UKIP policy on SPANKING. Also FACE SITTING, CANING, BONDAGE, and SQUIRTING.

Can you elucidate?

I am entirely serious. It would be nice if one serious political party had the cullions to call the New Porn Laws for what they are: utterly ridiculous.

Oh I agree. I would love to see UKIP come out strongly against the new laws.

Unfortunately as much as I am sure there is a small Libertarian clique in UKIP that would be over the moon (I was going to say champing at the bit but that seemed a little obvious as a joke) about such a stand, I suspect that there is truth in the claims that UKIP has a lot of very conservative members and supporters who would not agree with such a principled position.

So I am not holding my breath - either voluntarily or with a ligature - for such a change.

Charles

SeanT said:

re FPT and the debate on homosexuality: gayness is indeed clearly if partly genetic, inasmuch as it is evidenced throughout the animal kingdom, from seagulls to spiders to reindeer to robins. It is difficult to see how spider mothers could be so eerily caring they turn their sons into "queers", ergo it is impossible to conceive an entirely environmental explanation for homosex.

There is also an ev-psych explanation for the tenacity of human homosexuality: it is possible that gay sons benefit the human species by providing non sexually competitive males - Uncle Montys - who selflessly look after their nephews and nieces, as the best way of ensuring their own "genetic survival" .

I've personally witnessed this. Gay uncles can be incredibly caring for the offspring of their siblings.

Additional support for a partially genetic thesis can be hypothesised from the higher proportion of gays in the Deep South in the US. If I recall, the argument was that this was because the cultural factors against public homosexuality resulting in a higher proportion of gays marrying and having children...

Ironic...

Luckyguy1983

SeanT said:

Precisely right - and (by the way), very eloquent phrased. You should blog.

What a nice thing to say - I'm very touched.

Charles

FrankBooth said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

Nice joke Charles, but I'm afraid you are ignoring the point. You know full well the intent of what Cummings is saying. It's hardly very flattering of the PM is it? Whether Cummings is a reliable source is a bit more questionable.

I actually believe it's untrue. Cummings just likes the attention.

Flightpath

Quincel said:

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

In late 2012 EON increased the prices of its fixed tarrifs. 'Which?' asked ''Is this a sign that it is about to announce a price rise for existing customers?''

There is nothing magic about a fixed tarrif. It depends on the rate (!) and it takes into account future trends. I'm not sure a fixed price makes sense right now.

Sunil_Prasannan

The Poke ‏@ThePoke · 5m5 minutes ago
Never settle for a run of the mill nativity crib when you could have THIS! pic.twitter.com/EWx0OkNQ0h

Quincel

Charles said:

The difference is, though, that companies can effectively hedge an elective price freeze (and can even pre-hedge and then withdraw the offer once their hedge is filled). This allows them to capture the spread between the hedge price and the freeze price (so their only exposure is operating costs exceeding plan) while also securing volume to cover their overheads.

A mandatory price freeze is totally different: I suspect that they would struggle to hedge the complete amount effectively: at a minimum they would get killed on the spreads. More than that, I suspect that various hedge funds would anticipate this and position accordingly: all Ed Miliband would achieve would be to hand a big profit to his friends in the City.

To an extent I think that's true, but I suspect the fairly constant barrage of fixed price plans on the market mitigates this a fair amount. Since energy companies are already hedging for similar periods to the price freeze quite a bit, the market isn't a million miles from what would be enforced anyway.

I recognise this amounts to arguing that Labour's policy isn't actually much more than business as usual. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I think it's basically just some good (albeit cynical) politics by announcing you will force the Big Bad 6 to do what they already do, so EdM looks on the side of the working man against the corporate giants.

Luckyguy1983

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

And any Prime Minister reading a magazine at work (or even at home -I can't imagine Maggie flicking through Woman's Weekly rather than the contents of red boxes), is not worthy to be PM. It's about TOILING on behalf of the nation, not farting around New York disclosing Royal phone conversations or losing your daughter in pubs.

Richard_Tyndall

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.

For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.

Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.

UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.

The party does nothing but reflect hobby horses. Just as any party does. Often these have wider support amongst the general public and sometimes they do not. But in the end any party is reflecting the views either of its wider membership or of its leadership. In both cases, unless they have endless votes on every issue, someone senior in the party is making a personal decision about which hobby horses should become party policy.

All I have done is express disappointment that the party has chosen what I consider to be the intellectually and morally inferior position.

And I am afraid your comments about the legislation being driven from above as a precursor to criminalisation of opinion is straying too far into tin foil hat territory for me.

HYUFD

Charles Cummings certainly is not afraid who he rubs up the wrong way

HYUFD

SeanT What about bisexuality, according to the Kinsey scale most of us are somewhere in between pure heterosexuality and pure homosexuality

foxinsoxuk

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

And any Prime Minister reading a magazine at work (or even at home -I can't imagine Maggie flicking through Woman's Weekly rather than the contents of red boxes), is not worthy to be PM. It's about TOILING on behalf of the nation, not farting around New York disclosing Royal phone conversations or losing your daughter in pubs.

I do not think that it was a real anecdote, not least because I can see that my local state school has not fallen into the sea, or even Rushey Mead watermeadows!

Luckyguy1983

foxinsoxuk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

And any Prime Minister reading a magazine at work (or even at home -I can't imagine Maggie flicking through Woman's Weekly rather than the contents of red boxes), is not worthy to be PM. It's about TOILING on behalf of the nation, not farting around New York disclosing Royal phone conversations or losing your daughter in pubs.

I do not think that it was a real anecdote, not least because I can see that my local state school has not fallen into the sea, or even Rushey Mead watermeadows!

Nor do I, but Charles was extending the scenario, so I thought I would.

HYUFD

LuckyGuy Macmillan spent half his premiership reading Trollope in the Garden of No 10, and he is generally considered an above average PM

surbiton

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).
It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.

*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley

I preferred it when Rowenna Davis was a regular. Hopefully she'll return after she loses Southampton Itchen.

Hello, Avery ?